Priorities all wrong. Priorities fucked up. Priorities baaaaaaaad.
No. Don’t do that. Instead denounce the torture of Raif Badawi. Denounce the mass murders by Boko Haram. Denounce the massacre in Paris. Denounce the murders of many thousands of Muslims by Islamist fanatics. Denounce cruelty and torture and oppression everywhere. Denounce crimes against the living.
Updating to add what Maajid said:
This Sunday UK Muslim “community leaders” will protest, not the burning to death of al-Kasasbah in Islam’s name, not the public flogging of Raif Badawi for ‘blasphemy’ in Saudi Arabia, but cartoons.
Well, they’re certainly free to march and denounce, as long as they’re not promoting violence (which they don’t seem to be at least on the surface – it’s framed in terms of respect and civility); and I’m free to disagree and to continue to support blasphemy as a human right and respectful to them as well as the rest of humanity.
Right; that’s what I’m doing.
Granted, I said “don’t do that,” but in the knowledge that my words have no force and are in fact rhetoric.
I’ve been telling my fellow Seattleites to remove their 12 signs from my sight for more than a year, to no effect. It’s almost as if they can’t hear me.
I wonder if they understand how the actions of some of his adherents are besmirching the honor of the prophet every day. If they want to honor him, there are many unflattering depictions of islam that they can worry about: the black banners of ISIL, the gun-toting goons of Boko Haram, the killers in Paris, The Saudi government’s torturers for god, and more — they’re the reason a lot of people think of islam as a religion of violence and mohammed as a preacher of violence. Charlie Hebdo would have been marginalized as hate-filled assholes if not for the many adherents of islam who act to make it seem like a religion of hatred.
Shorter: I fully support their right to protest against the wrong problem.
Probably the islamic equivalent of Westboro Baptist will be there with signs reading “behead those who insult mohammed” and they’ll grab all the camera’s attention. 🙁 The cycle of hatred must be fed, after all.
Good grief, Ophelia – give me a little credit. Of course I wasn’t suggesting that you were demanding they not protest or not be allowed to protest. I just think that among the ways that people who are offended by the CH cartoons can express their displeasure, a protest calling for civility is one of the better ones, and that picking out this protest, writing “Nope nope nope,” and basically suggesting it’s bad isn’t very productive. (I suppose that’s where we missed each other: you read it primarily in comparison to other things they could be protesting, while I read it primarily in comparison to other ways of opposing this thing. They’re not contradictory – just different points of focus.)
That said, I can’t really get a handle on this organization. I looked through their site, and their understanding of civility is unclear and appears internally contradictory. I’m not sure what they’re about, and they might subtly be supporting censorship and condoning violence under the pretext of civility. But I’m fine with denouncing and protests framed in terms of civility and respect rather than censorship and violence,* even if I think they’re misguided.
Alas, more torture and cruelty and oppression.
*Again, can’t tell if this really is one.
No, they wouldn’t have, because they weren’t and aren’t hate-filled assholes.
Easy there pardner – I didn’t read it as you suggesting that for sure – I read it more as you possibly hinting at that or possibly not – so I clarified that I wasn’t saying what you might or might not have been hinting I was saying. That’s all.
Cool.
Am I the only one hoping and expecting this to turn out like those massive wingnut marches on Washington DC to remove Obama? The ones that drew more speakers than participants?
No – in hoping at least. It was my first thought on reading “Join 1000s of Muslims” (that and how much I hate “1000s”). Or that nonracist secularists will stop by and try to discuss the matter with them civilly and respectfully.
About getting a handle on the organization – I’m aided by the fact that my source for this item is Maajid Nawaz, and that he and other liberal Muslims are infuriated by this kind of thing – by, specifically, getting upset about cartoons while ignoring Raif Badawi. They for sure find it a terrible way to represent Islam. I don’t know if you saw the video Maajid did a few days ago – saying if you’re more upset about cartoons than you are about what’s happening to Raif then “we’ve got a fucking problem.” Emphasis his.
@3: Exactly. If your god (and/or nominally irreproachable representative thereof) behaves in ways generally considered seriously asshole-ish in any other context, then who’s the real blasphemer here? Those who point out and name the assholery, or you for confirming — while defending — that behaviour?
Ugh – really, SC, you can’t get a handle on the group? It seems starkly easy to me – the shit on their banners makes it easy. Or there’s the page on “Uncivilized Expressionists” –
http://www.muslimactionforum.com/expressionist.php
Satanic Verses – Rushdie’s book. These are Islamists, unmistakably.
There’s their About page –
It’s just brainless goddy shutuppery. The website is jejune in the extreme – all it’s about is saying No cartoons of prophet pbuh.
That’s an easy handle to grab.
Ophelia, I’ve been trying very hard not to contribute to the escalation of what I think (or thought) was merely a difference in emphasis. I would appreciate it if you would pull back on the prickliness and condescension. It seems you’re trying to be belligerent, and I’m not sure why.
That has nothing to do with getting a handle on the organization, and it doesn’t appear that you investigated the organization prior to posting. You’ve simply restated your original point – that you’re enraged at their priorities – that they’re protesting this and not that or other things – and added that Nawaz and others share your anger. I don’t. I’m pro-blasphemy and pro-human rights but I think Muslims have reasonable concerns about being disrespected and insulted (including under the guise of blasphemy), and understandable if unreasonable concerns about blasphemy. Whether all of the people involved in organizing or participating in this protest are legitimately offended or exploiting offense for power I don’t know, but I don’t think it’s useful or reasonable to be “infuriated by this kind of thing” in general. It’s useful to be concerned with whether this is something other than what it presents itself as.
I don’t care how it represents Islam. I care that people choose to protest and denounce peacefully rather than attack. (Once again, the question of the organization’s intent arises.) I care that people feel safe protesting, and that this is a legitimate act in the UK however silly others find your offense.
I did.
Maybe. I read the pages, as previously implied. Only one of those clearly suggests Islamist sentiments. That said, it might well be the case that they’re Islamists. And if that had been your concern I would have shared it. That wasn’t how you presented your argument in the post, or now, for that matter.
Yes, I thought that was established from the start. But my question was whether it was about saying No/shut up through peaceful protest and in the name of respect and civility or saying No/shut up violently and censoriously. What you just quoted says “peaceful demonstration,” but some of the other parts suggest something different. The issue for me is what this organization is about beyond the obvious denouncing of blasphemy. I’m still a bit unclear, and maybe lean toward Islamist front, but that’s an entirely different (and very serious) issue from being infuriated at the idea of people protesting blasphemy or about their presumed priorities.
I think there’s going to be a lot of disappointed Muslim marchers if they really expect to protest outside of No.10. There is the small matter of the iron gates guarded by very heavily-armed security personnel that prevent access to Downing Street – that’s the entire street, not just the bit outside No.10* – to anybody without an appointment.
Not exactly the lone police officer standing by the door to no.10, as seen in every T.V. news report ever from there, is it?
They might want to think about changing their ad’s to read “Venue. Just about in sight of 10 Downing Street”.
*A legacy of the IRA’s mainland terror campaign, if memory serves. Also, I think it’s the only public street in Britain to have such restricted access.
@#3
WTF? Um… no, they would not have been, mainly because they were not, nor are presently, hate-filled assholes.
https://www.facebook.com/144310995587370/photos/a.271728576178944.71555.144310995587370/932735056744956/?l=3d45eb3b3d